Severn Estuary (Wales-England). 30. Gulf of Morbihan (France). 32. Belgium Coast. 34. ANNEX - Indicators to assess collaboration process and progress ...
The collaboration process between researchers and authorities Guidelines to support a developing working relationship and insight into the collaboration process of IMCORE’s ECNs (IMCORE Project Deliverable)
Joana Mira Veiga Coastal & Marine Union (EUCC) 2011
Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………...
3
PART I – Indicators and Guidelines to support a developing working relationship…….
4
Pre-engagement: Is there the potential to set up an Expert Couplet? nd
5
2 Stage: Solid foundations for a working relationship
8
3rd Stage: The effectiveness of the working relationship
12
PART II – An insight into the 9 Expert Couplet Nodes of IMCORE ………………….....
19
Cork Harbour (Ireland)
19
Lough Swilly (Ireland)
21
Aberdeen (Scotland)
23
Sefton (England)
25
North East of England
26
South East of England
28
Severn Estuary (Wales-England)
30
Gulf of Morbihan (France)
32
Belgium Coast
34
ANNEX - Indicators to assess collaboration process and progress
2
INTRODUCTION It is recognized that achieving the objectives of long-lasting collaborations depends to a large extent on the effectiveness of the partnership in using its individual and collective resources to reach its goals. Furthermore it seems also to be shaped by the partners’ dynamics and organisation of the partnership (Schulz et al., 2003). The diversity of Expert Couplets involved in the IMCORE project, though working in parallel within the same project framework, have shown that there isn’t a perfect recipe for the functioning of such partnerships. Different relationship backgrounds, levels of formality in terms of working arrangements, type and number of organisations can all have a bearing on fruitful collaborations. This document represents a supporting resource to assist those looking to implement the concept of IMCORE’s Expert Couplets Nodes: an innovative model of partnership, whereby regulators, practitioners and research organisations co-operate and collaborate with each other to support capacity-building and policy development for coastal management. Part I addresses key aspects (indicators) that have been identified as important in the collaborative interface between science and management and which emerged from an assessment of the working processes and progress within current IMCORE Couplets. These can be used as a partnership-evaluation and guidance tool and be applicable to any developing collaboration between researchers and local/regional management bodies; where there is the need to better integrate science into local management, be it on adapting to climate change or any other management challenge. In Part II, an overview of the working process and progress of each of the IMCORE’s Expert Couplets is presented, illustrating the background context of the working relationship between the local/regional authority and academics, how it evolved and its reflection on the local management of the area.
3
PART I Indicators and guidelines to support a developing working relationship This section constitutes a reader-friendly version of the material included in the online “Building Institutional Capacity Module” (at www.coastaladaptation.eu). The user may choose to go through the online module, where each indicator is tested and at the end receiving tailored feedback and guidance. The full set of indicators is also presented as annex of this document. Both the indicators and this section have been divided in 3 stages, representing phases of development of the working relationship. These stages are not temporal but purely functional: a pre-engagement phase, directed to potential partners individually; an initial phase during which the partners are making the necessary arrangements to begin collaboration (2nd Phase); and a subsequent phase where work is already in progress and it may be relevant to start assessing the efficiency of the collaboration (3rd phase). Because the working relationship is a continuous process and though the indicators have been fitted to reflect that progress, it is likely that some indicators associated to the 2nd phase may still be relevant in the 3rd (and also the other way around). Furthermore, an unfulfilled indicator does not necessarily indicate that there is a fundamental weakness or gap in the collaboration to which partners should react. The indicators merely reflect key aspects that we believe the partnership should be aware of, but it is up to its end-users to decide how to consider each one in the context of their work.
4
P
re-engagement stage Is there the potential to set up an Expert Couplet?
Key points to be considered by individuals or entities that may have some interest or are already considering forming a collaborative partnership. These points can also lead to a joint reflection between potential collaborators, in assessing their willingness and capability to work in partnership.
Benefits of collaborating as an Expert Couplet Within coastal environments, specialised input that can lead to the understanding of natural dynamics and prediction of how natural systems may react to a certain approach or circumstances in the medium/long-term are essential for a sustainable and efficient response from local managers. Rather than a contract type of service, where the research partner may be requested to provide uni-directional input and deliver a product in return for a fee, working collaboratively with a researcher through a partnership implies that the both parties have mutually shared objectives and the decision-making process is shared. From the research side the collaboration may have solid benefits. Not only his/her involvement may directly contribute to improved local management and grounding of research efforts but it may also represent an opportunity to have access to important data, to validate research outputs, to contribute to professional development and enhanced reputation, as well as the production of applied knowledge.
“Increasingly within academic circles the profile of the Sefton Coast Partnership has been significantly raised through international, refereed conferences and internationally peerreviewed academic journals.” (Sefton ECN)
5
Have a glimpse on the perceived benefits of such collaboration to some IMCORE’s ECNs: Severn ECN Sefton ECN
Consider also if... As a representative of a local authority, you: -
Are open to discuss a certain issue with an academic partner;
-
Are able to provide access to relevant data;
-
Have a minimum financial and personnel capacity to dedicate to the collaboration.
As a researcher, you: -
Would be prepared to spend time discussing with the Authority a specific challenge without payment;
-
May have access to logistical resources needed to provide support to the Authority (e.g. lab facilities, computers, software);
-
Are able to bring in other areas of expertise if required.
How to identify a potential partner? The most obvious way is the use of networks – formal or informal. The authority may have past experience of working with consultancy companies and/or research institutes. Building on previous experiences and on direct knowledge of the partner’s is one step towards a strong and fruitful working relation. In fact, most of IMCORE’s ECN’s partners had worked together before. In such cases, the partners had worked together contractually (e.g. consultancy services in Donegal ECN), as a collaborative relation for a specific short-duration projects (e.g. EC ICZM Demonstration Programme in which Cork Couplet took part) or as long-dated partnership (e.g. Cardiff-SEP).
Another possibility is identifying research networks that focus on a relevant issue, for example, where a group may form around a common research interest. Finally, one can simply use the pool of contacts from which he/she can directly contact and ask for advice. Alternatively, the 6
researcher may be the one taking the initiative; he/she may be working in a relevant field and be aware of a problem that a local authority is facing, where his/her expertise could be helpful.
SEE MORE IN Lymbery, 2008: A guide to collaborative working on the coast – ‘two heads are better than one!’
Engaging personally motivated people and key supporters of the issue being addressed (referred to as “champions”) as potential partners or among stakeholders, can constitute a solid pillar for the collaboration and keep the process going.
Financial and personnel capacity to work as an Expert Couplet The collaborative work can be integrated using the resources allocated to deal with previously identified issues. The involvement of the research partner assumes that the authority was probably lacking specific capacity or expertise to address that matter but instead of hiring a one-way provision of services, which ends when the final product is delivered, the research expert/team can be invited to follow and participate in the process of planning and decisionmaking.
“The financial position of Donegal City Council is a risk and a constraint as without future funding by the council, this side of the couplet would no longer be able to operate. However, it is assumed that where possible the CCMR-DCC expert couplet mechanism will continue post IMCORE and will collaborate on future projects in the coastal zone.” (Donegal ECN)
As an alternative or complementary method, the partner organisations can try and obtain external funding to support such a working partnership. Funding schemes related to management, research or their interface can be applicable to collaborations that have the potential to produce applied knowledge.
7
nd
2
Stage
Solid foundations for a Working Relationship Assuming a willingness to collaborate, the following points address relevant aspects that
should be considered at the on-set of the working collaboration.
Mutual awareness of expectations It must be recognised that there are often important differences in the pressures, motivations and time-frames between coastal managers/authorities and researchers. Managers must produce successes that bring credibility to the programme to which the Expert Couplet collaboration is aligned. They must also respond to crises and the demands of administering a complex set of activities often due to public and political demands for action. The scientist, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the generation and appropriate use of "good science" (GESAMP 1996). Partners benefit by presenting and discussing their own views regarding what they expect to deliver and receive from the collaboration but also what they expect to achieve together; so that the expectations of each partner can be harmonised with each other and are realistic and achievable.
To illustrate this point, the expectations about the ECN from both Research and Authority sides, in the context of IMCORE, are described below:
Expectations from the Research side of IMCORE’s ECNs Researchers expect to contribute to the ECN with expertise in various areas of knowledge, in particular coastal response and adaptation to Climate Change, policy and legal tools, stakeholder engagement and participation. They might well expect the ECNs to develop a local adaptation management strategy and improve capacity of response from the local authority. To their research world, they expect to derive capacity building, validation of research outputs but also have access to data, professional development, including publications and enhanced reputation. 8
Expectations from the Authority side of IMCORE’s ECNs Authorities expect that the ECN will constitute a means of better understanding climate change, which would lead to a more informed policy formulation and better capacity to plan adaptation, supporting an adaptive local management strategy built with stakeholders and on scientific grounds. The Authorities expect to contribute with their end-user and governance perspectives, based in practical “real world” experience of implementing policy but also expertise in strategic development and access to relevant data.
Agreeing on objectives and milestones and having responsibilities well-defined It is important that the parts work together to define, at the start, goals and objectives of the collaboration but also to make sure that they both understand the pressures and reward systems under which the other part is working. Furthermore, a continuous update on the progress is necessary so that all parties are aware of decisions and events affecting the course of the collaboration (GESAMP, 1996). “Too often, adaptive management is reactive crisis management, because the partnership has not committed itself to a clear goal. Given the many surprise events nature throws at us, management soon spirals into a never-ending series of reactive actions that keep its officers busy impressing their bosses. My experience suggests that ecologists and managers don’t spend enough time in collaborative efforts to unambiguously define the end points or desired conditions of the system being managed; in other words, coming to consensus on the job to be done and goals to be achieved.” (Roger, 1998) Well-defined responsibilities reduce the risk of work being duplicated or “falling between the cracks” (i.e. work is not done because of unclear allocation between partners).
By definition, milestones are independent of time but represent the completion of a set of events or achievements in a programme of activities. Milestones should be measurable or observable and work as “flags” and markers of progress. In many cases, there is a decision to be made at a milestone. 9
Collaborative Plan of Action Though the working relationship may be fairly informal, it is important that a vision for the partnership is shaped and the partners have a clearly defined plan setting out how the goals and objectives will be reached, though the strategy should be flexible enough to allow adaptation. This will promote a joint reflection on the terms of the relationship and interaction while also providing a framework to guide the collaboration.
“Without some form of plan as to how to work together, confusion will reign except in the simplest cases. More than this though it is important to acknowledge that the structure will reflect the equality with which all partners come to the table; a structure that seeks agreement and consensus as opposed to the traditional hierarchical structure we are used to work in.” SEE MORE IN Lymbery, 2008: A guide to collaborative working on the coast – ‘two heads are better than one!’
Defining working arrangements If done properly and openly, collaborations are established in an environment of mutual sharing and learning. Working arrangements, scope of work (or formally “Terms of Reference”) can function as a framework throughout the collaboration. They usually include a description of the vision shared by the partners, the goals and objectives agreed, means and frequency of communication, responsibilities and tasks between the collaborators and also the identification of risks and possible constraints that can be external or internal to the partnership.
These arrangements can also work as a reference for evaluation, which can provide a formal feedback mechanism, allowing further opportunities for learning and, if needed, the adjustment/adaptation of the collaboration terms and/or partnership structure. The continuous analysis of progress and results of the partnership allows for adaptive
10
management, which greatly enhances the probability of success for any collaboration, project or programme.
Contact between partners For the duration of IMCORE’s project the Expert Couplet partners had contact (email, phone and face-to-face meetings) on a regular basis (see more in Part II). -
E-mail was the most frequent means, used as needed, but usually on a weekly basis. Face-to-face meetings were typically scheduled in an average of 6 times per year although this was naturally considered to be the most efficient way of communication.
-
The frequency of occurrence of the above forms of communication was generally considered to be sufficient and not difficult to maintain.
Whatever the means and frequency of interaction between the partners, both should feel that the communication is efficient and sufficient. If not, it should be adjusted accordingly and be within the capacity of both partners.
11
rd
3
Stage
The effectiveness of the Working Relationship
The collaboration is probably on-going for some time and partners are focusing on the issues that brought them to work together. The following aspects will help to consider how effectively and efficiently the partners are interacting, in relation to the objectives and expectations set in the beginning.
Dealing with differences The differences in motivations and time-frames between scientists and policymakers/practitioners, together with the demand for certainty versus the reality of uncertainty associated with science (which may not allow scientists to provide absolute answers) probably represent the greatest challenges for bridging science and management (for a detailed coverage of this issue please refer to Roux et al., 2006).Though both researchers and managers may be quick to agree on the existing gaps they are also among the first to recognise the need of integrating science and management.
Rogers (1998) highlights the divergent operational philosophies and reward systems between scientists and managers: whilst the former may have a propensity to seek problems of intellectual difficulty rather than immediate usefulness, the latter are driven to be pragmatic and serve their institutional hierarchy. According to this author, although each group needs to adopt these approaches among their peers, they equally need to find common process and purpose when interacting. The purpose of the partnership should be to develop consensus on institutional purpose, culture, and structure, and to neutralise the unfavourable consequences of divergent working philosophies and reward systems.
12
Knowledge as a shared process A basic assumption behind a partnership approach is that each partner brings unique perspectives, competences and skills and that the collaboration is strengthened through the use of that variety of resources towards a common goal (Schulz et al., 2003).
Partners should try to move away from the old idea that “knowledge” is something that is transferred from one side to the other. The collaboration should instead be focus on developing knowledge as a process that feeds on the views, expertise and experiences of both partners.
Science and management represent two spheres that can be complementary only to the degree that their knowledge or understanding is able to interface. The recognition of this interface not only provides a node for dialogue but also facilitates the co-evolution of values, priorities, intent and action that provides robustness to decision-making. Scientists and managers become a unified learning system in which new and shared experiences lead to “joint discoveries” and the creation of new knowledge. See Roux et al., 2006 for expansion of this concept.
Clear messages, efficient interaction The communication between the partners should be open, clear and accessible. The partners should develop a common language, and clarify the meaning of relevant terms and concepts.
The researcher should try to communicate clear and transparent messages, avoiding “scientific jargon”, informing about uncertainty without mining the robustness of evidence. One of the biggest challenges to scientists is to be able to break-down research to scales and to a context that are relevant to local management. This includes more management-oriented concepts which need to be communicated in an easy-to-understand manner.
13
The authority should try and communicate their information needs openly but without expecting absolute answers from science. In the face of uncertainty, the dimension of risk associated to the scientific evidence or prediction should not be ignored.
The planned face-to-face meetings can be complemented with presentations from both the collaborative parts to other staff members of the organisations (during lunch, for example) in order to inform on relevant issues and developments of the collaboration.
Developing mutual familiarity and trust between the partners In formal or informal partnerships, but mainly in the latter as there is no formal contract to adhere to, the success of collaborative relations relies heavily on trust, respect and commitment built between the partners. Familiarity can keep the channel open to discuss issues that may be sensitive and overcome constraints that may be external to the partnership.
As noted by some of the IMCORE’s Expert Couplets, the personalities of the individuals involved and how they get along in a personal level, play an important role.
“The approach to working with academics that exists on the Sefton Coast works well as long as we recognize that there will be limitations due to resources and other commitments and that the process inevitably relies to a great extent on individuals and the relationships between individuals. It appears to work best where both the practitioner and academic are passionate about the coast as they are more likely to overcome any barriers to achieving results.” (Sefton ECN)
There should be evidence of learning having been integrated throughout the collaborative process to improve the capacity to work together and the effectiveness of the activities being carried. Remember that “organisations don’t collaborate – individuals do.”
14
Bringing in resources to support decision-making process In order to support prioritisation and the decision-making process, it is important that the partners bring to the collaboration all relevant information that should be taken into account when addressing a certain issue but also tools that can facilitate consideration and integration. This may include:
-
Bringing in other areas of expertise;
-
Identifying or developing tools that may help the decision-making process. These tools can be for example, economic (e.g. Economic Impact Analysis, Benefit-Cost Analysis), participatory (scenario exercises, PESTLE Analysis), or technical (e.g. GIS, visualisation tools to help define future scenarios – click here for the tools used in IMCORE).
See here what was the feedback and benefit of using GIS tools in the work of Aberdeen ECN
Assessing the effectiveness of the working collaboration The collaboration will benefit greatly if it is evaluated periodically (even if informally), in respect to the effectiveness of the communication and progress towards the goals and objectives agreed at the outset. Such a review will allow possible adjustments in the working arrangements to be made if needed.
Simple indicators of fruitful and balanced collaborations are perceptions of a positive change in the nature of the relationship between the partners, an improvement in the understanding and evidence-base (more precise and accurate data, reduced uncertainty) within the Authority and the self-realisation of a wider management view by all partners, taking into account broader implications of the initial problem.
15
Taking the knowledge produced beyond the individuals involved An effective collaboration means also that the knowledge produced reaches beyond the partners and involves other institutional and societal layers. The purpose and achievements of the collaboration should be communicated and promoted internally but also to external key stakeholders. This may involve:
-
Production of dissemination materials from the collaboration and/or participation on public events to inform and/or engage the general public and other stakeholders; (See example of Cork ECN) (see the Educational Pack developed by Severn ECN to inform youngsters about climate change and its impacts in the area)
-
Expansion of the working relationship within the Authority e.g. interdepartmental;
-
Expansion of the knowledge throughout other layers of the Authority, in particular to permanent staff members and those from higher positions;
-
Incorporation of other relevant bodies e.g. state-agencies, cross-border agencies, specific stakeholders and the general public. (See how Severn ECN encouraged joint working and improved interaction between scientists and policy makers; guidelines and tips for stakeholder engagement here)
Dealing with personnel and structural changes As illustrated by several of IMCORE’s Expert Couplets Nodes, there have been some changes in the staff that was directly involved in the collaborative relationship. Though the substitution may create some delay in the progress of the collaborative work, the “imprint” of the efforts and benefits to the institutions/parties involved will facilitate the adjustment to these changes. As recognised elsewhere (e.g. Wiener at al., 2011), having planned mechanisms for communication at the institutional level can compensate for the changing dynamics in the organisations but also differing organisational structures. Moving towards a formal collaboration? 16
This may reflect a change in the nature of the partnership framework, from an informal to a more consolidated partnership, perhaps even resulting in the establishment of a new organisation or department of an institution. See more in Lymbery, 2008: A guide to collaborative working on the coast – ‘two heads are better than one!’
See the example of North-East England ECN that used the framework of IMCORE to establish a steering committee to better integrate communication between organisations in the region, involving the main statutory organisations active in climate change.
Nevertheless, as illustrated by most of IMCORE’s ECNs and elsewhere (e.g. GESAMP, 1996), informal inter-institutional working relationships on specific issues can be very productive. Informal structures may avoid situations whereby official delegates feel obliged to articulate and defend the policies and prerogatives of their respective institutions. Scientists with an interest in the issue can participate as individuals, and the emphasis is upon problem solving, finding areas of common interest and collaborative action.
17
REFERENCES GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP)- Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, (1996). The contributions of science to coastal zone management. Reports and Studies, GESAMP. No. 61. Rome, FAO. Available in: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/W1639E/W1639E00.HTM#CONTRIBUTIONS
Lymbery, G. (2008). A Guide to Collaborative Workin on the Coast. Corepoint documents. Available in: http://corepoint.ucc.ie/FinalDeliverables/Publications/CollaborativeWorking/A%20guide%20t o%20collaborative%20working%20on%20the%20coast.pdf
Rogers, K. (1998). Managing science/management partnerships: a challenge of adaptive management". Conservation Ecology [online], 2. Available in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss2/resp1/
Roux, D., Rogers, K., Biggs, H., Ashton, P., Sergeant, A. (2006). Bridging the science– management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society, 11.Available in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
Schulz, A., Israel, B. , Lantz, P. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26. Available in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
Wiener, C., Rivera, M., Toonen, R., Leong, J., Kosaki, R., Karl, S., Keller, K., Johnson, H. (2011). Creating Effective Partnerships in Ecosystem-BasedManagement: A Culture of Science and Management. Journal of Marine Biology. Available in: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jmb/2011/241610.pdf
18
PART II An insight into the 9 Expert Couplet Nodes of IMCORE
Cork Harbour (Ireland) Planning Policy Unit (PPU)
Department of Cork County Council
National Maritime College of Ireland (NMCI)
Staff from the Cork Institute of Technology (CIT) and the Irish Naval Service (INS)
Coastal and Marine Resources Centre (CMRC)
A research centre based within the University College of Cork
Link to Cork Harbour case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution CMRC, PPU and NMCI have been collaborating on an intermittent basis since the mid-1990s. This was primarily through collaborative research: CMRC and Cork County Council worked together on the ICZM Demonstration Programme from 1996 (in Bantry Bay) and INS assisted CMRC on national biological surveys. During this period, the working relationship between the research centre and the authority/institute was project-based and time bound and Cork Harbour was not the focus of these works. The successful past experiences set the motivation to engage CMRC and PPU as an ECN, which came into formal existence in 2004, under the INTERREG IIIB project COREPOINT. At this time, NMCI collaborated informally in some of “A partnership model that uses the individual strengths, skills and these activities and in expertise of the couplet members to collectively achieve mutual 2008, with the goals. Capacity building and learning are inherent to ECN beginning of the activities.” (CMRC) INTERREG IVB Project IMCORE, NMCI joined officially the couplet of Cork Harbour.
19
ECN Process Since its inception, the Cork Harbour ECN has operated without formal terms of reference, or a constitution to outline the objectives and functions of its partners. Although there has been staff changeover in both County Council and CMRC and new relations had to be established, the institutional memory existing between the 2 entities facilitated their development and at no stage this threatened the cohesiveness of the ECN, as key personnel have been retained. There has been a high level of interaction between the local authority and the university research group since its beginning. With IMCORE, this interaction is favoured by the close physical proximity between CMRC and NMCI, which are both based in very close-by facilities.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed In COREPOINT, the main objective of the ECN was to develop and support the establishment of an ICZM framework strategy for the Harbour and a better integration of science-based knowledge in the planning systems, strengthening the link between science and policy. The discussions included planning, technical measures and research tools. New knowledge of physical, social and economic attributes of “Mutual mentoring for adaptation” (NMCI) Cork Harbour was generated through various studies that were mutually agreed. These involved a multidisciplinary approach brought in by CMRC, with collaborative input of geographers, engineers, environmental scientists, geo-morphologists, legal experts and GIS IT specialists. Recommendations were made and discussed with planners who added value to the research process by contributing their local knowledge, professional experience and appreciation of political realities to the equation. With IMCORE, the main issue is coastal defence within the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012, the current management policy frame. The National Adaptation Strategy is under development but there is no regional or local strategy to climate change or adaptive management. According to the academic part, the ECN aims to underpin the delivery of a local adaptive management strategy via capacity building, e.g. through climate science, scenarios, visualisation, stakeholder & regulatory engagement.
20
Lough Swilly (Ireland) Donegal County Council
Local Authority
Centre for Coastal & Marine Research (CCMR)
A research centre based within the University of Ulster
Link to Lough Swilly case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution In its working scope initiatives, the DCC works in collaboration with many state agencies, academic bodies, government departments, cross border agencies and the general public. CCMR and DDC have a long established working relationship which has been developed through collaboration on various coastal management projects. They have worked together between 1997 and 2000, as one of the European Commission Demonstration Programmes on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, which was followed by other European funded projects. The couplet per se started in 2004 with COREPOINT and all interactions (formal and informal) between the 2 partners since then have been considered as ECN activities. In practice the ECN is actually a continuation and strengthening of the existing relationship which began during the EU Demonstration Programme LIFE Project. The previous experiences helped build up familiarity and trust between these two partners and the relationship became gradually less formal. However, the relationship was undeveloped as it was essentially expert/client and work carried on an intermittent basis. The earlier projects did little to enhance management capacity in the local authority however they did provide a mechanism to develop marine/coastal tourism initiatives, beach management plans and maritime and beach bye-laws. ECN Process The engagement in the ECN, emerged from individual, insightful Council employees and not from the County policy, as there were no policies to deal with the issues to hand at the time. Since its establishment there has been frequent interaction between the ECN partners to address specific coastal issues. Working with permanent staff members of the Council is expected to increase the in-house communication while the workshop process to be carried out as part of IMCORE may build their capacity to better deal with coastal management situations. Securing IMCORE funding
21
enabled the appointment of a temporary staff member to work specifically on IMCORE and to liaise with permanent staff to deliver the IMCORE outputs. The academic partner has agreed to provide expert advice to the council on coastal management issues that arise during the IMCORE project and provide expertise in data collection and analysis. On the other hand the Council provides access to data, personnel and policy/strategy development. It is expected that as part of the process, the main consultative group – council officials and staff, representatives from state agencies and organisations with a remit for Lough Swilly are engaged. A financial framework seems essential to the viability of the couplet in its current form as without future funding by the Council the authority side of the couplet would no longer be able to operate. However, it is assumed that where “The exchange of expertise between academia and possible the CCMR-DDC implementation bodies. E.g. University and a Local couplet mechanism will Authority” (Donegal County Council) continue post IMCORE and will collaborate on future projects in the coastal zone.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed The vision of the couplet is to develop in-house capacity of the Council and provide scientific foundation for decisions to deal with future coastal management issues. It aims to initiate the development of an adaptive strategy for climate change and to inform future marine spatial planning (MSP) on Lough Swilly. The general perception on climate change was a constraint, as there has been scepticism about the topic. The couplet is therefore focusing on coastal change rather than the possible cause - climate change, as the first is more tangible for staff on a practical level. In fact, the ECN represents the first effort to focus on climate change and MSP in Lough Swilly and the couplet has agreed on a work programme for the environmental and activity audit and the Lough Swilly Book to be completed within the timeframe of IMCORE.
22
Aberdeen (Scotland) Aberdeen City Council
Local Authority
Aberdeen Institute for Coastal Science and Management (AICSM)
A research centre based within the Department of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen
Link to Aberdeen case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution Aberdeen City Council (ACC) joined the University of Aberdeen as an ECN in IMCORE. Regular contact between the University and the City Council has been on-going for many years. Supported in part by ACC, the East Grampian Coastal Partnership (EGCP) is a local coastal forum based in Aberdeen. It was established in 2004 and its mission is to assist in the delivery of ICZM and Marine Spatial Planning along the East Coast of Scotland. The University of Aberdeen is an academic member of the EGCP, Vice-Chair of the EGCP, and also a member of its Steering Group.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed Once a popular spot for holidays and daytrips, the area of Aberdeen surrounding Nigg Bay has suffered economic and environmental degradation over the last half century. The South Aberdeen Coastal Regeneration Project (or 'SACRP') was established to confront these issues and is a collaborative effort between the University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen City Council, other local and regional coastal partnerships and organisations, stakeholders, and the local community. The ECN is working together to contribute to the planning and implementation of a waterfront regeneration project in along-neglected area of Aberdeen. Furthermore, it aims to tackle the lack of education and the apathy of some segments of the local population by expanding the community’s understanding of climate change issues and drivers, and enhancing its ability to adapt to potential impacts. Issues such as coastal flooding and coastal defenses are currently the focus of ECN work, not only in Nigg Bay, but also along the waterfront of Aberdeen Bay, and extending both north and south of Aberdeen City into Aberdeenshire.
23
ECN Process Long-term collaboration between ACC, EGCP and the University of Aberdeen provided the basis to develop a partnership in the form of the ECN. Whilst ACC as a coastal city has many issues to deal with along the coastline, prioritizing climate change has been the main focus of the couplet. Although climate change is a widely accepted part of the work of many departments within the City Council Initially the perception of many members was that climate change impacts were not a serious concern for much of the Aberdeen area, and in particular when considering the levels of uncertainty associated with widely available data and information about climate change, and especially when compared with more immediate issues such as the impact of the credit crunch on the local economy. Overcoming these obstacles was partially facilitated by the framework of IMCORE. Throughout all the phases of the project, the ECN will facilitate the integration of potential environmental and economic impacts of climate change, utilizing the research and tools on climate change adaptation developed under IMCORE and through increasing skills in coastal adaptation and various tools. Representatives of the University of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City Council (ACC) meet weekly to discuss project planning and the development of primarily the IMCORE but also the SACRP project, and arrange the following week’s activities. “Cooperative venture through which academic expertise is These regularly scheduled utilized by local authority for project planning and face-to-face meetings afford development.” (AICSM) an opportunity to evaluate completed phases of the project and adjust the initial project plan where necessary. Furthermore, a number of workshops and additional meetings have afforded an opportunity to provide outreach and support on local climate change issues. This has been facilitated through use of the local press, the development of a Climate Change website (www.aberdeenclimatechange.net), and advertising using local buses. The ECN reflects, therefore, an adaptive process in itself. In addition, meetings of the SACRP planning committee, which includes additional members of the University, City Council, and local organisations (SNH, Ranger Service, Crown Estates, etc.) occurs once every 1-3 months to discuss and plan project business.
24
Sefton (England) Sefton Council
Local Authority responsible for the management of a number of elements of the Sefton Coast
Edge Hill University Southampton University
A local University with a strong interest in research on the local coastal area
Link to Sefton case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution Sefton Council has a long experience of working with a range of academic institutions, including Cardiff University which is the current academic part of another ECN. The Sefton Coast Partnership exists for a few decades and focus on nature conservation and coast protection whilst recognising the role the coast has for the local economy. It tries to bring together relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues, promote a joint vision and encourage collaborative working. The ECN was brought together as a research network under the Sefton Coast Partnership but is heavily based around two key individuals which relation has enabled a number of collaborative projects to be undertaken. Academics and Practitioners working together in Nevertheless, the research task group a collaborative manner. (Sefton Council) continues to succeed in bringing together researchers and their ideas and the profile of the Sefton Coast Partnership has been increasingly enhanced within the academic circle.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed The main objective of the ECN is to improve the understanding of the Sefton Coast, in particular the geomorphology and evolution of the sand dune system, and to ensure this is communicated to the practitioners in order to inform policy. A research strategy has been produced and provided a framework of agreed priorities, improved co-ordination and information provision between the coastal research task group.
25
North East of England Durham Heritage Coast (DHC)
Division within the Durham County Council, the Local Authority
ENVISION Management Ltd. Coastal Consultancy Company
Link to NE England case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution Envision has worked with the NE ICZM Steering Committee, which was set up to provide a regional overview of ICZM in this region and to promote integrated and holistic management. The committee was led by the Countryside Agency, with other members drawn from other agencies as well as officers of designated areas (Northumberland AONB and DHC). In 2004, with Corepoint, Envision has supported the ICZM Steering Committee in a series of activities: workshop in 2005 aimed to raise awareness of ICZM and to assess the progress in ICZM (using the EU-expert group ICZM indicators); a regional stocktake in 2005-6 (stakeholder assessment, networking review and identification of coastal issues) which led to the identification of a set of action points for the region. In mid-2006 another workshop was carried out to critically review the action points from the stocktake, to revise them and select priorities. Progress on this last action has been slow, due to major restructuring of the English agencies, with the joining of some of them. Envision and Durham County Council made attempts to kick“A partnership between expert academic/professional bodies start progress through a and coastal practitioner operating at a local and regional School of Excellence in level.” (DHC) ICZM (held in June 2007).
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed DHC and Envision aimed to work collaboratively to develop better communication links with coastal sectors in the area to help to unify stakeholders; to develop adaptation strategies for the North East that can add value to programmes already in place. Climate change is not a new concept in the North East and the couplet needs to feed in to and add quality contributions to actions already in place with respect to marine and coastal elements. 26
ECN Process The two parts maintained regular communication. They tried to develop wider collaborative working within the NE regional level and endeavour to use transboundary expertise. ENVISION is mainly responsible for providing expertise in coastal management and supporting DHC. By its side, DHC has taken the role of supporting enhanced coastal management of the NE region, with special consideration of the Durham Heritage Coast designation. These are responsibilities that have been agreed within the frame of IMCORE. The couplet realised a gap in the climate change structure where the current climate change adaptation policies and strategies did not have a strong coastal aspect. Integrated communication between organisations in the North East was not particularly strong. In order to make the region aware of these issues, the couplet approached the matter in a top down manner and invited the main (statutory) organisations active in climate change topics in the region to participate in a steering group for the region. This resulted in the establishment of ForeSea which is the North East UK regional initiative of IMCORE.
27
South East of England East of England Government Office (GO-East)
East of England Regional Development
Link to SE England case-study
Office that supports the delivery of government policies on sustainable development and adaptation to environmental change within the region Institution aiming at improving the economy of East of England Non-profit Network of coastal and marine professionals and institutions from the UK and worldwide
CoastNet
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution Collaboration between CoastNet and other IMCORE subpartners is mostly taking place under The East of England Coastal Initiative. This is an innovative, multi-agency project started by GOEast and guided by a number of regional bodies. By bringing together partners at a national, regional and local level, the Initiative provides an important opportunity to consider the longterm future of our coast in an integrated manner.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed The Coastal Initiative aims to inform and influence thinking about the coast at a number of levels, including facilitating the dialogue of the public with the authorities and improve the evidence base for considering coastal futures. Its initial focus was the Regional Spatial Strategies, which have now been nullified by the new government. It also recognises the importance of influencing local planning authorities and other executive agencies to ensure appropriate decisions are taken at the local level. Given the complexity of adaptation at a regional level, the ECN chose to develop an adaptation strategy at a community level and focusing on community action in the face of climate change. For their Adaptation Strategy we took a single community, Jaywick, to work with. Jaywick is one of the most challenging case studies for adaptation to climate change, as it consists of many poor quality dwellings, constructed in an area with high coastal flooding risk. Thus the adaptation strategy is presented as a community action plan. It focuses on actions that the community can do for themselves to improve quality of life in Jaywick, whilst higher authorities determine the long-term future.
28
ECN Process A realization amongst regional agencies that there were serious inconsistencies in the regionalspatial strategy was the key driver for the Government Office in the region to pull together key partners into a working group to consider the issues. As time progressed this group became first a project Steering Group and then a programme Board. At the same time community groups from around the UK were brought together, in particularly in the case study region, to help them engage better with central government and its agencies. Through this process it was realized the extent of the knowledge “A partnership between research and policy gap that had developed between the organisations (CoastNet) public and the policy and research community. The ECN developed a framework to support the achievement of a more balanced knowledge base amongst stakeholders, called Coastal Literacy. The local community was engaged in order to understand perspectives on change, which were very varied. This was also the chance to test a variety of approaches to engagement, using heritage, arts and digital media as tools in alternative to ‘consultation’. i.e the process of accessing local knowledge and gauging community opinion.
29
Severn Estuary (Wales – England) Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP)
Independent association, estuarywide, led by local authorities and statutory agencies.
Marine & Coastal Environment Research Group (MACE)
Cardiff University
Link to Severn case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution The SEP exists since the 80’s. Since the mid-1990 local authorities, government agencies and a wide range of other organisations with coastal interests are involved in a collaborative initiative covering the Severn Estuary issues. The launch of the Severn Estuary Strategy Document in 2001 led to the establishment of the Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP) to aid its implementation. Cardiff University became host organization for the Severn Estuary Partnership, following academic involvement (Rhoda Ballinger) in the early developmental stages of SEP, in the 1990´s, and its predecessor, the Severn Estuary Strategy. Cardiff University and SEP worked together as a couplet during COREPOINT and one of their activities intended to formalise the already existent relationship between these two parts. During the initial development of the ECN a document outlining “Local linkages between research organisations and potential benefits of the coastal management practitioners attempting to relationship was developed. This bridge the science-management divide.” (SEP) highlighted the research opportunities to MACE, including the benefits of a first-hand, living laboratory/experiment for research into coastal planning and management. For SEP, benefits included high quality research input into its decision-making an operations, on-tap guidance from a range of researchers and scientists, and a gateway to a wider research network around the estuary. The ECN is being further developed with IMCORE and though only MACE is an official partner of the project, both parts have agreed on collaborating together in the terms laid out in the project proposal.
30
ECN Process MACE and SEP are in regular and very frequent contact. In what concerns the establishment of the ECN, there were a few internal obstacles, mainly in relation with the lack of legal status of the SEP and the associated need for Cardiff University to take on the legal role of SEP - a virtual organization with different aims and aspirations, as well as partners. Staff turnover within SEP also delayed the establishment of the ECN programme within IMCORE. Glamorgan University is also engaged in the couplet being sub-contracted by Cardiff University. Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed The main aim is to provide a strategy for informing the development of climate change adaptation on the Severn Estuary. As subsidiary aims, the couplet will try to enhance the capacity for climate change adaptation in the area and encourage joint working and improved interaction between scientists and policy makers. The couplet intends to address the development and socio-economic changes around the estuary in relation to climate change and explore site level issues as case studies around the estuary, including development and coastal flooding, coastal tourism and climate change.
31
Gulf of Morbihan (France) SIAGM - Intermunicipal Syndicate for Planning in the Gulf of Morbihan
Organization of 34 municipalities to promote local sustainable development according to a common vision Joint research unit between the Marine Economics Department of IFREMER and the Centre for the Law and Economics of the Sea of the University of Western Brittany (UBO)
AMURE
Link to Gulf of Morbihan case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution The first contacts between SIAGM and AMURE occurred in 2005, with the INTERREG IIIB project COREPOINT. In 2007, SIAGM organised a conference on Climate Change and around the same time AMURE proposed the establishment of a couplet for IMCORE. SIAGM was created in 1964 and has very advanced ICZM expertise, with 10 years of experience. Since its existence it has collaborated closely with scientists and incorporating ICZM principles into its processes and local actions. This background seems to facilitate considerably the communication within the couplet but on the other hand, due to the great expertise within its staff it was difficult to identify particular issues to be addressed by the ECN.
ECN Process SIAGM and AMURE keep an informal relation, only officially linked within the IMCORE contract. In 2010, an informal agreement was written, establishing the general terms of the collaborative work between the two parts and valid only “In French “couplet” can be translated as “tandem”, meaning until the end of the project, a long term relation based on the local issues. Both parts of in 2011. Nevertheless, the the tandem are “feeding” the other it provides: interaction and work are - A real basis of study for the scientists and considered efficient and - Support for the local partner in its actions dealing with the fruitful, the communication project” (SIAGM and AMURE) between the members fluid and very frequent, at least on a weekly basis. The plan of work is quite well established: identification of local issues to be addressed, develop visualization and scenarios tools and tailor an adaptive management plan. 32
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed The Gulf of Morbihan is mostly a natural area, but with high human pressure due to its economic (not industrial), urban and touristic attractiveness. The vision of SIAGM is to keep 80% of the natural areas in the next 20 years. Since 2000, SIAGM is leading a few projects for the Gulf of Morbihan, working closely with all stakeholders. The approach intends to make issues compatible, in order to preserve and promote heritage in the development of the territory. The main objective of the couplet is to address climate change and develop an adaptive management strategy to climate change for the Gulf of Morbihan, together with local stakeholders, policy makers and local managers. Aspects of urbanism and shellfish farming will receive particular attention. The process in which this is done is extremely important to the partners because as the stakeholders are being involved there will be the opportunity to make them more aware of the issues of climate change on the coastal zone. In fact, the couplet considers that the process of developing the adaptive management strategy is as important as the strategy itself. As in most coastal territory in France, policy makers do not consider it to be a priority due to mainly to uncertainty of impacts and temporal scale. Building scenario visualization of town and land planning in the context of climate change has been one of the main tools expected to contribute for this.
33
Belgium Coast MDK – Coastal Division
Government agency of the Flemish Region responsible for coastal protection, ICZM, basic infrastructure of coastal marinas, hydrographical and meteorological services
Maritime Institute (MI)
Maritime Research Division of the Department of International Law, from Ghent University.
Link to Belgium case-study
Historical management context of the couplet and its evolution The relationship between the MI and MDK started in 2001, in the form of consultancy and legal support for policy initiatives. The established format of the relationship was perfectly compatible with the activities proposed by IMCORE and therefore an opportunity to further develop the relation and enhance its effectiveness.
ECN Process The main added-value identified in IMCORE was the opportunity to exchange experiences with equivalent couplets, bring the expertise of partners with certain strengths and the combined development of a frame for local adaptive strategies. It is considered that the current “Having a good working relation, formal and relationship deeply stands on particular individuals, without whom informal” (MI) the connection between the two bodies would probably not survive.
Aim of the couplet and local issues addressed Adaptation to climate change of coastal areas, in particular coastal defense, and also provide public, free and quick access to coastal legislation for governmental administrations and the public at large
34
Annex Indicators to assess collaboration process and progress between Researchers and Authorities Stage 1. Is there the potential to set up an Expert Couplet Node… Take this stage if you are an individual or represent an entity that may have some interest or is already considering forming a collaborative partnership. This section of the questionnaire will encourage you to reflect on your willingness and capability to work in partnership.
… from the perspective of an Authority? (If you represent an Authority) Y / N / DK 1. Does the Authority have a specific challenge whereby the engagement of a specialised, Research Partner would aid in finding a solution? 2. Do you understand the specific benefits of working with Research Partner? 3. Are you open to discuss their problem with a Research Partner? 4. Are you able to identify and contact a Research Partner that could help in the solving of the problem? 5. If you don’t have any direct scientific contacts, are you able to make approaches through other means e.g. internet searches, via working networks? 6. Is there a minimum of financial and personnel capacity to work with a Research Partner? … from the perspective of a Researcher? (If you are a Researcher) Y / N / DK 7. Are you aware of a problem that a local authority is facing where your expertise/field of work could be helpful? 8. Do you understand the specific benefits of working with an Authority from a researcher’s perspective? 9. Are you prepared to spend time discussing specific a challenge with an Authority, without payment, as a volunteer? 10. Are you able to access the logistical resources (e.g. lab facilities, computers) needed to provide support to the Authority? 11. Are you able to bring in other areas of expertise if required?
35
Stage 2. Is the working relationship being developed on solid ground? Assuming a willingness to collaborate, the following indicators address relevant aspects that should be considered at the on-set of the collaboration process. Both partners are invited to make a joint reflection on key aspects for a solid working relationship. Y/ N/ DK 12. Are there perceived fundamental differences in approaches to the problem between the Research Partner and Authority which may seem irreconcilable or hinder the collaboration? 13. Have you agreed on a collaborative plan of action? 14. Are you aware of what the other expects to derive from, and offer to, the ECN? 15. Have you agreed on a set of goals and objectives? 16. Have you agreed on a set of milestones and outputs? 17. Do you consider that the responsibilities of the two partners are welldefined? 18. Have you agreed on working arrangements? 19. Is there regular, on-going contact by the partners of the ECN? 20. Is there regular face-to-face contact with the partners of the ECN? 21. Do you consider the relationship a permanent one such that a change of personnel on either side would not end the collaboration?
Stage 3. How effective is the working collaboration? This stage is most relevant to on-going collaboration in which partners are focusing on the issues that brought them to work together. The following indicators will help to consider how effectively and efficiently the partners are interacting, in relation to the objectives and expectations set in the beginning. Y/ N/ DK 22. Is your working relationship one in which a two-way interchange of knowledge and ideas is occurring? 23. Do you consider that the methods used to communicate and collaborate are efficient? 24. Is the Research Partner able to transmit a clear message? 25. Has mutual familiarity and trust between the partners developed? 26. Have dissemination materials been produced from your collaboration? 27. Has the Research Partner been able to develop or bring in resources available to the Authority for helping decision making? (e.g. GIS, 36
visualisation tools) 28. Do you consider that there has been an improvement of the understanding and evidence base (more precise and accurate data, reduced uncertainty, etc.) within the Authority? 29. Has the ECN incorporated other relevant bodies e.g. state agencies, cross-border agencies, specific stakeholders, the general public? 30. Are you reaching the stated aims and goals named at the outset? 31. Was the Research Partner able to bring in other areas of expertise needed? 32. Has there been a positive change in the nature of the relationship between the two partners with time? 33. Has there been an expansion of the working relationship within the Authority e.g. inter-departmental? 34. Has there been an expansion of the knowledge throughout other layers of the Authority, in particular to permanent staff members and those from higher positions? 35. Do you consider that the management capacity of the Authority has been enhanced? 36. Do you think the collaboration will be able to withstand personnel and structural changes? 37. Do you consider that the Authority has adopted a wider management view taking into account broader implications of the initial problem? 38. Is the established ECN likely to survive beyond the initial challenge? 39. Is the ECN working likely to become policy for the Authority as a result of the work done?
37
